I know myofibrillar protein synthesis rate is 1.4(old)- 2.5g/h(young). But I heard it takes something like 45,000 calories. It must differ for newbies... anyone?
pound of muscle is made up of roughly 600-700 cals. IIRC
Wait I thought there were way more calories in a pound of muscle than in a pound of fat.
3,500 calories equals a pound as far as I know but that might just be fat.
Just because X amount of tissue mass "contains" said amount of calories does NOT mean it COST that many calories to STORE it.
Come on, the world is not flat.
600 cals in a pound of muscle, 3500 cals in a pound of fat.
Which makes sense because the volume of a pound of fat is larger than the volume of a pound of muscle, I believe.
~3500 cals for a pound of fat, ~2000-2500 cals to GROW a lb of muscle
I have estimated -- for what such estimations are worth -- at probably very roughly about 1000 cal/lb, based on its energy content and on feed efficiency values that are known for growing livestock.
Not that humans would likely be precisely the same.
Treat it as just a very rough value.
My completely uneducated thoughts tell me that a pound of muscle would be about 700-1000 cals, being that the fiber content of a pound of muscle is about 30% and about 70% water. Fat is 3500 cals because it is about 85-95% fat with 5-15% water,blood supply, and fat soluble goodies.
^I heard that too. I think that right.
well wouldent a pound of calories weigh the same no matter what.
which is heavier a ton of feathers or a ton of lead?
What about the tendons, blood and fluids required to sustain said pound of muscle?
Not if the said pound is made up of 70% water, which the last time I checked had 0 calories.
A calorie is a measure of heat energy that can be liberated upon combustion, not of weight.
pi x 0.98/2
I can not believe this question got so many serious replies with only one pointing out that it simply doesn't work like this!
Even with fat, which is SIGNIFICANTLY less metabolic than muscle, then '3500kcal rule' has little real life relevance.
You cannot eat a surplus of 3500kcals and expect to gain 1lb of fat (or any other ratio of mass) let alone when the tissue is as metabolic as muscle.. how can you put a number of calories on a tissue which is constantly in an anabolic or catabolic state? Let alone all the millions of processes involved in metabolism AND the fact that everyone is different?
What was the OP hoping to do? Calculate exactly how many calories he needed to add 50lbs of muscle and split it over the year?
Just eat well, train hard and rest. Sometimes all this talking stresses me out.. if people spent half the time training that they do thinking up ridiculous 'facts' or 'methods' to train optimally, they would be a hell of a lot better off than they seem to be right now.
You can't just say 'you have to eat x amount of calories to build a pound of muscle'. It depends on the energy expenditure of the individual and his/her metabolic rate. Just eat until you see weight gain with minimal fat gain. Experiment. Use common sense.
Yeah it takes a lot of calories for you to build muscle. I say a lot because as far as I know there is no magic number.
Well, when growth is occurring rapidly, it is possible to measure feed efficiency, which is the amount of additional energy in the feed found to be needed per amount of added caloric energy added to the animal, as determined after slaughter.
That has been done many times.
From such data, it's reasonable to estimate a figure that is quite unlikely to be too high and probably is not too badly low either. Namely, about 1000 cal/lb of lean muscle tissue added.
It does have relevance to a steroid cycle in a particular situation where extremely rapid gains should occur, as with a really properly done first cycle in the earlier weeks, or in some steroid cycle regain situations.
In other words, if you eat only 500 cal/day over what you would usually maintain at at the same training, ain't no way you are going to add 1 lb LBM per day, which otherwise could be quite possible for a cycle done under those conditions.
Not that I couldn't also give the figure from experience, but for those wanting to know why that ought to be, it turns out there is a reason why it ought to be, as well.
The OP's question was an entirely reasonable one. He had a wrong figure that he had obtained from somewhere and it made absolutely no sense to him, so he asked.
I really might as well have not posted my previous reply on it though: clearly I might as well have been talking to myself.
7 the number/answer is always 7
Keep thinking of this shit!